Legal or not, content like this is made for pedos. - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

will76 · 12-14-2006, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

.

(*) the term ?indistinguishable? used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

Thats why i stay away from that shit. Last thing i want to do is go to court and a jury decide if the girl looks over 18, when in fact she was over 18. I just can't see someone going to jail for being 20 but people *think* she looks 16... that would suck.

Obviously this has not been tested, do you know of any cases where someone made a 18 year old girl look young, and then the person got arrested for CP, convicted and it didnt matter that she wasn't a minor.

Pleasurepays · 12-14-2006, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

He is arresting him based on a law:Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2252A(a)(5 )(B) and 2256(8).
How can you arrest someone base on a law that was revoked 2 years earlier?

some provisions of the law were struck down... and you are ignoring the fact that you keep citing provisions of the law that are talking about actual minors... not adults dressed as minors.

For the purposes of this chapter, the term -
(1) "minor" means any person under the age of eighteen years;

(8) "child pornography" means any visual depiction, including
any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or
computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by
electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit
conduct, where -
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use
of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image,
or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable
from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or
modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in
sexually explicit conduct.

will76 · 12-14-2006, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

i am personally a little torn on the issue. from one side, a simple, sound argument is "hey, its 100% legal"... from the other side, i can imagine how a parent feels looking at their 13 year old daugher.. then seeing a site like that and knowing why guys are there and knowing its not just 13yr old boys with a healthy, curiosity that are looking. thats gotta be a creepy and weird feeling.

I agree with you. it's a bad situation. You don't want to open pandora's box to a jury deciding how the girls look on your site regardless if they are really 18,19,20 etc.. At least using their age is cut and dry, *their looks* leaves too much up in the air. It is bad enough that "obscenity" is subjective... i know it when i see it " etc... now if they do that for how the girls looks, it's going to be bad.

So how do you dry the line. But at the same time, that shit is out of hand.... tricky situation.

PMdave · 12-14-2006, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

some provisions of the law were struck down... and you are ignoring the fact that you keep citing provisions of the law that are talking about actual minors... not adults dressed as minors.

For the purposes of this chapter, the term -
(1) "minor" means any person under the age of eighteen years;

(8) "child pornography" means any visual depiction, including
any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or
computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by
electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit
conduct, where -
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use
of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image,
or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable
from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or
modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in
sexually explicit conduct.

no. read again.
such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image,
or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable
from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

PMdave · 12-14-2006, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

some provisions of the law were struck down...

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/f...20%20%20%20%20
published 01/03/05

John69 · 12-14-2006, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

some provisions of the law were struck down... and you are ignoring the fact that you keep citing provisions of the law that are talking about actual minors... not adults dressed as minors.

For the purposes of this chapter, the term -
(1) "minor" means any person under the age of eighteen years;

(8) "child pornography" means any visual depiction, including
any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or
computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by
electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit
conduct, where -
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use
of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image,
or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable
from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or
modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in
sexually explicit conduct.

this looks as if slick has no case with this definition

BoyAlley · 12-14-2006, 09:59 PM

God damn some of you fuckers are denser than a rubber dildo.

http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dlt...2dltr0019.html

Kimo · 12-14-2006, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thinkx

It doesnt matter if you have a point, they did something thats not allowed under US law.

Thats not a personal opinion its a fact.

They didnt break the law.

PMdave · 12-14-2006, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

God damn some of you fuckers are denser than a rubber dildo.

http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dlt...2dltr0019.html

Look at the law as it was last published. It was only partially re-worded

porn blogger · 12-14-2006, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thinkx

It doesnt matter if you have a point, they did something thats not allowed under US law.

Thats not a personal opinion its a fact.

only illegal if they are intentionally portrayed to be under 18. people cant help their appearance. i'm 22 and look 17-18. when i was 18 i looked 15...

PMdave · 12-14-2006, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porn blogger

only illegal if they are intentionally portrayed to be under 18. people cant help their appearance. i'm 22 and look 17-18. when i was 18 i looked 15...

He's talking about DirectNic doing illegal stuff by violating privacy laws (which they weren't)

BoyAlley · 12-14-2006, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

Look at the law as it was last published. It was only partially re-worded

It doesn't matter what form the law is on the books, that provision was over turned by the supreme court.

Many states still have sodomy laws on the books as well. That doesn't matter either, as Lawrence v. Texas overturned those provisions as well.

If anyone were ever charged with "models that appear to be under 18", or with "sodomy", the exact same thing would happen: It would get kicked out of court in 2 seconds with 1 pre-trial motion. And the person charged could sue.

But prosecutors don't press charges using statutes that they know were over ruled by the supreme court.

Yngwie · 12-14-2006, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

So now because she looks like a 13 year old instead of a 7 year old it's less worse? Does the fact that it is "by definition" is not a pedophile changes anything?

And the general concencus now is that there should be more child porn because it's not encouriging but stopping pedos? Or should we just not care about child pornography is it doesn't do any harm once it has been shot? Maybe they should just legalize all existing child pornography and just put a ban on new material to be produced?

The law defines the age of 18. Untill that age it's child pornography. That was the point. Even if the models are 18 it's still illegal to make them look 13.

I didn't say it makes it better or worse. I was just stating that to many people don't understand what an actual pedophile is. Yes, it's still bad if the girl is 13, 14, 15, 16 etc.. If the girl is 18, but looks younger that will not cause some sicko to go out and do something to kids. They don't need porn to do that. They would just do it because they are fucked in the head. My point was that a pedophile doesn't need to see pics of young looking or actual young girls to start thinking "hmmm I think I will go fuck a 13 year old". Never said that it was good.

John69 · 12-14-2006, 10:18 PM

seems like boy alley approves of child porn ?

BoyAlley · 12-14-2006, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John69

seems like boy alley approves of child porn ?

If after everything I've said in all of these threads, that's the conclusion that you draw, then you're an idiot with reading comprehension problems.

Go lecture to the Innocent Images Division of the FBI, develop techniques to help them track down predators online, provide them with software to help in the same, then come back and talk to me about CP.

Jackass.

I support the LAW and I support DUE PROCESS. What in the HELL does that have to do with supporting CP?

BoyAlley · 12-14-2006, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John69

seems like boy alley approves of child porn ?

You know what, that really fucking pisses me the hell off as a matter of fact.

PMdave · 12-14-2006, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

It doesn't matter what form the law is on the books, that provision was over turned by the supreme court.

Many states still have sodomy laws on the books as well. That doesn't matter either, as Lawrence v. Texas overturned those provisions as well.

If anyone were ever charged with "models that appear to be under 18", or with "sodomy", the exact same thing would happen: It would get kicked out of court in 2 seconds with 1 pre-trial motion. And the person charged could sue.

But prosecutors don't press charges using statutes that they know were over ruled by the supreme court.

Do you read the links you post?

Quote:

On July 17, 2002, a Joint Resolution was proposed to add a constitutional amendment respecting real and "virtual child" pornography.50 "Section 1. Neither the Constitution nor any State constitution shall be construed to protect child pornography, defined as visual depictions by any technological means of minor persons, whether actual or virtual, engaged in explicit sexual activity. Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."51 This proposed amendment is again overbroad and contradicts the First Amendment because it would eliminate a substantial subsection of artistically valuable work. Hollywood movies and television programs have many examples of visual depictions of "minors" engaged in explicit sexual activity. The proposed amendment bans not only explicit pictures of prepubescent children but depictions of 17 year-olds engaged in sexual activities that might not be offensive to community standards much like the original CPPA.52

The conclusion says that the new amendment will not stand but thats an opinion of a lawyer, NOT a supreme court verdict.

Mediachick · 12-15-2006, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bizman2960

Do you think slapping a 35 year old girl across the face with a 14-inch cock and making her swallow cum on camera is any more morally acceptable than shooting an 18 year old?

Here's the difference between the two; the 18 years old do it for the money, the 45 years old for fun

Mediachick · 12-15-2006, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

you are the second person who have mentioned ifriends " look too young" policy. If you are 18 or older but look way younger for your age ifriends wont accept you.

It's their website and the have to do with the bullshit involved with false CP complaints. They choose to be proactive and do not want to even give the appearence of having CP on their site.

However you and the other person who mentioned this both mentioned what they were doing in a bad way and mentioned sueing them?

What the hell is wrong with you people. YOu want to sue them because they wont accept models who look like kids ??? god damn.

You have clearly not worked close to ifriends as much as I did. I would sue their ass in a heartbeat. BTW, if you browse there for a while you'll find plenty of models that looks underaged and that are broadcasting everyday.

Besides, if you read the rest of my post maybe you'll get my point.

directfiesta · 12-15-2006, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John69

seems like boy alley approves of child porn ?

Seems like John69 is an idiot ?

FunkyDog · 12-15-2006, 10:22 AM

PMDave:

So infact 2257 regulations don't apply anymore? Where do you get your LEGAL advice? The way i see it you don't care about 2257, you don't care about laws and facts..... you shut down whenever you think it's justified? That just makes you a VERY DANGEROUS person in your job. Do you even know that you stated that people should stay away from DN because they got a trigger happy guy with his finger on the button?

I personally think you made this statement because you realize you don't have ANY LEGAL bases to shut don't Slicks sites.

You say that this isn't the wild west anymore? With you on the button it actually is turning back to the wild west: no laws, no rules.

Just my 2 cents

By the way: isn't it a BAN offense to call someone a pedo on gfy? There seems to be alot going on of that the last 24 hours. (this is not directed personally to you PMDave)

FunkyDog · 12-15-2006, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FunkyDog

PMDave:

So infact 2257 regulations don't apply anymore? Where do you get your LEGAL advice? The way i see it you don't care about 2257, you don't care about laws and facts..... you shut down whenever you think it's justified? That just makes you a VERY DANGEROUS person in your job. Do you even know that you stated that people should stay away from DN because they got a trigger happy guy with his finger on the button?

I personally think you made this statement because you realize you don't have ANY LEGAL bases to shut don't Slicks sites.

You say that this isn't the wild west anymore? With you on the button it actually is turning back to the wild west: no laws, no rules.

Just my 2 cents

By the way: isn't it a BAN offense to call someone a pedo on gfy? There seems to be alot going on of that the last 24 hours. (this is not directed personally to you PMDave)

Forget it..... i mixed up identities.... my misstake! This should be directed to AI Mike

12-14-2006, 10:18 PM	#114
John69 Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 942	seems like boy alley approves of child porn ? __________________ DARKSOUL: thanks but no thanks, your over priced.

12-15-2006, 10:22 AM	#121
FunkyDog Confirmed User Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 541	PMDave: So infact 2257 regulations don't apply anymore? Where do you get your LEGAL advice? The way i see it you don't care about 2257, you don't care about laws and facts..... you shut down whenever you think it's justified? That just makes you a VERY DANGEROUS person in your job. Do you even know that you stated that people should stay away from DN because they got a trigger happy guy with his finger on the button? I personally think you made this statement because you realize you don't have ANY LEGAL bases to shut don't Slicks sites. You say that this isn't the wild west anymore? With you on the button it actually is turning back to the wild west: no laws, no rules. Just my 2 cents By the way: isn't it a BAN offense to call someone a pedo on gfy? There seems to be alot going on of that the last 24 hours. (this is not directed personally to you PMDave) Last edited by FunkyDog; 12-15-2006 at 10:25 AM..

12-14-2006, 09:59 PM	#107
BoyAlley So Fucking Gay Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 19,714	God damn some of you fuckers are denser than a rubber dildo. http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dlt...2dltr0019.html